Ciara CIARA Q170M-DA

Performance Results

 
Gaming
Gaming 5%
Tree trunk
Desktop
Desktop 35%
Jet ski
Workstation
Workstation 5%
Tree trunk
PC StatusOverall this PC is performing below expectations (34th percentile). This means that out of 100 PCs with exactly the same components, 66 performed better. The overall PC percentile is the average of each of its individual components. Use the charts in the benchmark sections of this report to identify problem areas.
ProcessorWith a relatively low single core score, this CPU can handle email, light web browsing and basic audio/video playback, but it will struggle to handle CPU intensive tasks. Finally, with a gaming score of 35.4%, this CPU's suitability for 3D gaming is poor.
Graphics1.6% is too low to play 3D games or use CAD packages. (Note: general computing tasks don't require 3D graphics)
Boot Drive41.3% is a reasonable SSD score. This drive enables fast boots and responsive applications.
Memory16GB is enough RAM to run any version of Windows and it's more than sufficient for nearly all games. 16GB also allows for very large file and system caches, software development and batch photo editing/processing.
OS VersionAlthough Windows 10 is not the most recent version of Windows, it remains a great option.
Very high background CPU (100%). High background CPU reduces benchmark accuracy. How to reduce background CPU.
Run History
SystemCiara CIARA Q170M-DA  (all builds)
MotherboardASUSTeK Q170M-C
Memory9.6 GB free of 16 GB @ 2.1 GHz
Display1680 x 1050 - 32 Bit colors
OSWindows 10
BIOS Date20170208
Uptime0.2 Days
Run DateJan 14 '23 at 18:52
Run Duration137 Seconds
Run User CAN-User
Background CPU 100%

 PC Performing below expectations (34th percentile)

Actual performance vs. expectations. The graphs show user score (x) vs user score frequency (y).

Processor BenchNormalHeavyServer
Intel Core i5-6500-$60
LGA1151, 1 CPU, 4 cores, 4 threads
Base clock 3.2 GHz, turbo 3.3 GHz (avg)
Performing way below expectations (3rd percentile)
35.4% Below average
Memory 48.1
1-Core 41.6
2-Core 94.6
36% 61.4 Pts
4-Core 124
8-Core 202
20% 163 Pts
64-Core 139
9% 139 Pts
Poor: 43%
This bench: 35.4%
Great: 73%
Graphics Card Bench3D DX93D DX103D DX11
Nvidia GeForce GT 520
Asus(1043 83BD) 1GB
CLim: 810 MHz, MLim: 300 MHz, Ram: 1GB, Driver: 376.54
Performing as expected (54th percentile)
1.6% Terrible
Lighting 1.8
Reflection 2.4
Parallax 1.1
2% 1.77 fps
MRender 2.6
Gravity 2.3
Splatting 2
2% 2.3 fps
Poor: 2%
This bench: 1.6%
Great: 2%
Drives BenchSequentialRandom 4kDeep queue 4k
Kingston A400 240GB-$28
23GB free (System drive)
Firmware: SBFKT1A3
SusWrite @10s intervals: 209 202 214 77 37 36 MB/s
Performing below potential (14th percentile) - Ensure that this drive is connected to a SATA 3.0 port with a SATA 3.0 cable
41.3% Average
Read 189
Write 182
Mixed 176
SusWrite 129
38% 169 MB/s
4K Read 10.8
4K Write 22.3
4K Mixed 15.8
48% 16.3 MB/s
DQ Read 226
DQ Write 252
DQ Mixed 167
146% 215 MB/s
Poor: 33%
This bench: 41.3%
Great: 100%
WD Green 1TB (2011)-$64
629GB free
Firmware: 01.01A01
SusWrite @10s intervals: 118 128 132 131 134 117 MB/s
Performing above expectations (81st percentile)
76% Very good
Read 138
Write 128
Mixed 79.9
SusWrite 127
87% 118 MB/s
4K Read 0.8
4K Write 2.4
4K Mixed 0.8
167% 1.33 MB/s
Poor: 38%
This bench: 76%
Great: 85%
Memory Kit BenchMulti coreSingle coreLatency
Samsung M378A1K43BB1-CPB M378A1K43CB2-CTD 16GB
2133, 2133 MHz
8192, 8192 MB
Performing way below expectations (16th percentile)
41.6% Average
MC Read 15.1
MC Write 17
MC Mixed 15.5
45% 15.9 GB/s
SC Read 6
SC Write 11.7
SC Mixed 8.3
25% 8.67 GB/s
Latency 168
24% 168 ns
Poor: 37%
This bench: 41.6%
Great: 85%

 System Memory Latency Ladder

L1/L2/L3 CPU cache and main memory (DIMM) access latencies in nano seconds

Typical CIARA Q170M-DA Builds (Compare 25 builds) See popular component choices, score breakdowns and rankings
Gaming
Gaming 50%
Yacht
Desktop
Desktop 74%
Battleship
Workstation
Workstation 40%
Speed boat

System: Ciara CIARA Q170M-DA

EDIT WITH CUSTOM PC BUILDER Value: 89% - Excellent Total price: $255
Why does UserBenchmark have a bad reputation on reddit?
Marketers operate countless reddit accounts. UserBenchmark’s data exposes their marketing spiel so they systematically attack our reputation.
Why don’t large PC brands support UserBenchmark?
PC brands profit greatly from flagship hardware like the 4090, 14900KS, and 7950X3D. We help users get similar real-world performance for less money.
Why don’t any youtubers promote UserBenchmark?
We don't sponsor youtubers, so they have no incentive to praise us. Moreover, brands pay youtubers extra to promote inferior products but UserBenchmark’s data exposes them.
Why does UserBenchmark have so many negative trustpilot reviews?
Trustpilot hosts user-generated online reviews. It's obvious that the 200+ UserBenchmark reviews, are mostly written by virgin marketing accounts. Real users aren't interested in promoting billon-dollar brands.
Why is UserBenchmark so popular with users?
Instead of pursuing lucrative sponsorships with billion-dollar PC brands, we have dedicated 13 years to publishing accurate real-world data. As a result, our users save millions every year and they keep returning.
The Best.
CPUGPUSSD
Intel Core i5-12600K $170Nvidia RTX 4060 $293Crucial MX500 250GB $39
Intel Core i5-12400F $122Nvidia RTX 4060-Ti $385Samsung 850 Evo 120GB $80
Intel Core i5-13600K $260Nvidia RTX 4070 $550Samsung 870 Evo 250GB $45
HDDRAMUSB
Seagate Barracuda 1TB (2016) $37Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 C16 2x8GB $40SanDisk Extreme 64GB $72
WD Blue 1TB (2012) $28Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3000 C15 2x8GB $48SanDisk Extreme 32GB $28
Seagate Barracuda 2TB (2016) $62G.SKILL Trident Z DDR4 3200 C14 4x16GB $351SanDisk Ultra Fit 32GB $16
If you make a purchase via one of these links, our site may earn a commission
Today's hottest deals
About  •  User Guide  •  FAQs  •  Email  •  Privacy  •  Developer  •  YouTube Feedback